Ethics Training for Registrants

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 3

Ethics Training for Registrants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On December 14, 1995, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

(Commission or CFTC) published for comment proposed amendments to

Sec. 3.34, which governs

[[Page 20128]]

ethics training for Commission registrants. These amendments require

ethics training providers, who have not already been authorized by the

Commission to provide ethics training, to pass the Series 3

Examination, the standard industry proficiency test, and possess three

years of relevant experience. The rule is now also applicable to state-

accredited entities, which in the past were exempt from certain

requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These rule amendments will become effective June 5,

1996. However, with respect to state-accredited persons or entities

providing ethics training pursuant to Sec. 3.34 as of March 29, 1996,

the applicable date shall be August 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief

Counsel or Myra R. Silberstein, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading

and Markets, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone

(202) 418-5450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 210 of the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 added a

new paragraph (b) to Section 4p of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) to

mandate ethics training for persons required to be registered under the

Act.1 On April 6, 1993, the Commission adopted Rule 3.34 to

implement this Congressional mandate.2 Rule 3.34 requires natural

persons registered under the Act to attend ethics training to ensure

that they understand their responsibilities to the public under the

Act. The required training must address the requirements of the Act and

relevant rules concerning the treatment and handling of customer orders

and business. Issues to be addressed may include: Honesty, fairness and

the interests of customers and the integrity of the markets; effective

supervisory systems and controls; assessment of financial circumstances

and investment experience of customers; disclosure of material

information; and avoidance of conflicts of interest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ This provision of the Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 6p(b)

(1994) and states that:

The Commission shall issue regulations to require new

registrants, within 6 months after receiving such registration, to

attend a training session, and all other registrants to attend

periodic training sessions, to ensure that registrants understand

their responsibilities to the public under this Act, including

responsibilities to observe just and equitable principles of trade,

any rule or regulation of the Commission, any rule of any

appropriate contract market, registered futures association, or

other self-regulatory organization, or any other applicable Federal

or state law, rule or regulation.

\2\ 58 FR 19575, 19584-19587, 19593-19594 (Apr. 15, 1993). In

September, 1993, the Commission issued a Federal Register release to

clarify the procedures to be followed by persons seeking to provide

ethics training pursuant to Rule 3.34. 58 FR 47890 (Sept. 13, 1993).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New registrants must attend ethics training within six months of

being granted registration and every three years thereafter. The

initial training is required to be at least four hours in duration;

subsequent training must be at least one hour in duration. Persons

registered when Rule 3.34 became effective on April 26, 1993 were

granted until April 26, 1996 to attend an initial training session of

at least two hours in duration and thereafter to attend a one-hour

session every three years. Ethics trainers must maintain records of

materials used in such training and of attendees at such training.

In December 1995, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 3.34 to

enhance the operation of the ethics training program and furnish

additional guidance with respect to the activities of ethics training

providers.3 These amendments, which became effective on January

12, 1996, require, among other things, that a person seeking to provide

ethics training certify that he is not subject to a statutory

disqualification from registration under the Act,4 barred from

service on self-regulatory organization (SRO) governing boards or

committees,5 or subject to a pending proceeding concerning

possible violations of the Act or rules or orders promulgated

thereunder.6 Also in December 1995, the Commission published

proposals for further amendments to Rule 3.34 which would require that

persons who seek to provide ethics training: (1) present satisfactory

evidence of successful completion of proficiency testing requirements

established by a registered futures association; and (2) possess a

minimum of three years of relevant experience. The Commission also

proposed to amend Rule 3.34 to eliminate the provision permitting

state-accredited entities to provide ethics training without compliance

with the requirements applicable to other providers under the

rule.7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 60 FR 63907 (Dec. 13, 1995).

\4\ 7 U.S.C. 12a(2) and (3)(1994). The Act specifies several

grounds for disqualification from registration including, among

others, a prior revocation of registration, felony conviction, and

an injunction relating to futures or securities activities.

\5\ No person may serve on SRO governing boards or committees

who, among other things, has been found within the prior three years

to have committed a ``disciplinary offense'' or entered into a

settlement agreement with respect to a charge involving a

``disciplinary offense,'' is currently suspended from trading on any

contract market, is suspended or expelled from membership in any

SRO, or is currently subject to an agreement with the Commission or

an SRO not to apply for registration or membership. A ``disciplinary

offense'' for these purposes means any violation of the Act or the

rules promulgated thereunder or SRO rules other than those relating

to: (1) Decorum or attire; (2) financial requirements; or (3)

reporting or recordkeeping, unless resulting in fines aggregating

more than $5,000 in a calendar year, provided such SRO rule

violations did not involve fraud, deceit or conversion, or result in

a suspension or expulsion. 17 CFR 1.63 (1995).

\6\ See Commission Rule 3.34(b)(3), 60 FR 63907, 63912.

\7\ 60 FR 64132 (Dec. 14, 1995).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received five comment letters on the proposed rule

amendments. The commenters included a registered futures association,

an SRO and three ethics training providers. The commenters generally

supported the objectives of the proposed rule amendments, but some

commenters recommended modifications of the proposals. Comments

addressed to specific provisions of the proposed rule amendments and

the Commission's resolution of the issues raised therein are discussed

below in the context of the relevant rule provision.

Based upon its review of the comments received and in light of its

experience in administering this program, the Commission has adopted,

substantially in the form proposed, the amendments to Rule 3.34

regarding ethics training providers published in December 1995. The

amendments adopted herein will require any person other than an SRO

seeking to provide ethics training to meet a proficiency testing

requirement and possess a minimum of three years of relevant

experience. These amendments have been adopted generally as proposed,

with certain clarifications based upon the Commission's review of the

comments received. The provisions of the rule relating to the topics to

be covered in ethics training and the minimum requirements for

attendance by registrants at such training remain unchanged.

II. Amendments to Commission Rule 3.34

A. Proficiency Testing and Minimum Experience Requirements

Currently, Rule 3.34 requires that any person seeking to provide

ethics training to registrants under Rule 3.34, other than an SRO or a

state-accredited entity, certify to a registered futures association

that such person, any principals thereof (as defined in Commission Rule

3.1(a)) 8 and any individuals who, on behalf of such person,

present ethics training or prepare ethics training videotapes or

electronic presentations are not subject

[[Page 20129]]

to: (1) Statutory disqualification from registration under Sections 8a

(2) or (3) of the Act; (2) a bar from service on SRO governing boards

or committees based upon disciplinary histories pursuant to Commission

Rule 1.63 or any SRO rule adopted thereunder; and (3) a pending

adjudicatory proceeding under Sections 6(c), 6(d), or 9 of the Act, or

similar proceeding under Section 8a of the Act, or Commission Rules

3.55, 3.56 or 3.60. If the person intends to conduct training via

videotape or electronic presentation, he must also certify that he will

maintain documentation reasonably designed to verify attendance of

registrants at such presentations for the minimum time required. These

certifications are continuous; thus, if circumstances change which

result in the certification becoming inaccurate, the ethics training

provider must promptly so inform the registered futures association

which, upon being so notified, shall refuse to include in, or shall

remove such person from, the list of ethics training providers.9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 17 CFR 3.1(a) (1995).

\9\ Commission Rule 3.34(b)(3), 60 FR 63907, 63912.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendments to Rule 3.34 proposed in December 1995 would require

any person seeking to provide ethics training (other than an SRO) to

furnish satisfactory evidence to a registered futures association that

he has met the proficiency testing requirement established by a

registered futures association pursuant to Section 17(p)(1) of the Act

for the registration of commodity professionals 10 and possesses

three years of relevant experience. Currently, the National Commodity

Futures Examination (Series 3 Exam) is the proficiency test required to

be completed by most commodity professionals.11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Section 17(p)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 21(p)(1)(1994),

provides, in part, that a registered futures association must

establish training standards and proficiency testing for persons

involved in the solicitation of transactions subject to the Act,

supervisors of such persons, and all persons for whom it has

registration responsibilities.

\11\ See NFA Registration Rule 401.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proficiency requirement, coupled with a three-year experience

requirement, provides an even-handed, objective basis for assuring a

minimum level of expertise. Further, such standards are compatible with

the method used by the Commission to date in reviewing applications

from potential offerors of ethics training. As the Commission noted in

proposing the original Rule 3.34, ``pedagogical expertise and knowledge

of futures are factors that should be taken into consideration in

evaluating potential offerors of ethics training.'' 12

Consequently, in reviewing applications filed under Rule 3.34 by

persons seeking to provide ethics training, the Commission has

endeavored to assure that such providers demonstrate pedagogical

experience and knowledge of the futures markets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 58 FR 19575, 19586.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In commenting on these proposed amendments, the National Futures

Association (NFA) stated that it fully supports the concept of

requiring ethics training providers to meet objective and readily

measurable standards of proficiency. NFA reiterated its view, expressed

initially in commenting upon the amendments to Rule 3.34 in December

1995, that it is imperative that these standards assure that ethics

training providers possess a working knowledge of the futures industry

and relevant regulations. NFA expressed its belief that satisfactory

completion of the Series 3 Exam, in conjunction with three years of

relevant experience, generally will achieve this end.

Two commenters suggested that persons having certain types of

experience, e.g., former CFTC Commissioners or non-compensated

instructors, should be automatically exempted from the proficiency

testing requirement. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed

amendments would exclude attorneys who have practiced extensively in

this field but who would be unwilling to incur the time and expense

associated with taking the Series 3 Exam. This commenter recommended an

alternative proficiency requirement to the Series 3 Exam based upon

representations that the proposed provider is not subject to a

statutory disqualification, is a member in good standing of a state bar

association and: (1) Was a CFTC Commissioner or staff attorney or SRO

staff attorney for at least two years; (2) has taught a futures course

at an accredited university or law school for at least two years; or

(3) has had a law practice consisting of at least thirty percent

futures work over the previous three years. A second commenter proposed

that the Commission exempt from the proficiency testing requirement

experienced new instructors who participate in ethics training programs

previously authorized by the Commission. This commenter suggested that

such an exemption could be limited, so as not to detract from

achievement of the objective of assuring effective, high quality ethics

training, to instructors who: (1) Co-instruct with at least one other

instructor who has passed the Series 3 Exam; (2) possess qualifications

similar to those instructors previously participating as ethics

training providers; (3) are not compensated; and (4) meet minimum

experience requirements. The commenter supported such an exemption as a

means of assuring a healthy influx of additional qualified instructors.

This commenter noted that its pro bono instructors are highly

experienced in-house counsel and compliance officers of future

commission merchants, commodity pool operators and commodity trading

advisors and attorneys specializing in financial services law and

regulation who have been very effective instructors of ethics training.

The Commission believes that requiring persons who seek to provide

ethics training to provide proof of satisfactory completion of a

proficiency testing requirement and of three years of relevant industry

or pedagogical experience provide objective, readily administered

standards for determining knowledge of relevant matters, compliance

with which should not be unduly burdensome.13 Compliance with the

proficiency test requirements applicable to registrants is an

appropriate benchmark for a minimum level of knowledge of relevant

statutory and rule requirements.14 However, the Commission

appreciates that the proficiency requirement may be unduly restrictive

in some cases and believes that this requirement can be implemented

with sufficient flexibility to permit highly qualified instructors, at

least those providing services on a pro bono basis, to participate in

ethics training programs with providers who

[[Page 20130]]

have passed the Series 3 Exam. Such service is itself in furtherance of

the public interest and established ethical precepts, and the

Commission believes that alternative indicia of experience can be

relied upon in such cases.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ One commenter suggested that the minimum experience

requirement be two years rather than three, because two years

corresponds to the minimum experience required by NFA before APs of

member futures commission merchants and introducing brokers are

permitted to exercise discretion over accounts. See NFA Rule 2-8(d).

However, the Commission believes that the special responsibilities

of ethics training instructors warrant a three-year minimum

experience requirement.

\14\ The Commission believes that the Series 3 Exam is the only

relevant proficiency test currently available for ethics training

providers, since it is the proficiency test that is generally

applicable to Commission registrants and is designed to assure a

broad working knowledge of the futures industry. Although the

Commission recently approved an alternative proficiency testing

requirement under which general securities representatives whose

commodity interest activity will be limited to managed accounts or

commodity pool interests may take the Futures Managed Funds

Examination (Series 31 Exam) in lieu of the Series 3 Exam, the

Commission believes that even if an ethics training provider wishes

to instruct only commodity pool operators, commodity trading

advisors and their associated persons (APs), the more comprehensive

based Series 3 Exam is the appropriate proficiency test.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission therefore believes that it would be appropriate for

NFA, in establishing proficiency standards, to create either on a case-

by-case or generic basis, a waiver of the proficiency test requirement

in appropriate cases, where the proposed instructors would serve

without compensation and have qualifications that evidence expertise at

least comparable to that provided by successful completion of the

Series 3 Exam. Such an exception might appropriately be granted in

circumstances in which the person: (1) Co-instructs with at least one

other instructor who has passed the Series 3 Exam; (2) meets the

minimum experience requirements and has experience in financial

services law and regulation; and (3) is acting on a pro bono basis,

i.e., without compensation other than reimbursement for travel

expenses. The Commission contemplates that NFA may grant other

exemptions from the proficiency test requirement in special

circumstances, such as where a scheduled instructor becomes

unavailable.15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ NFA Rule 402 permits NFA's Vice-President of Compliance to

waive the general proficiency requirements under circumstances

approved by NFA's Board of Directors. See also NFA Interpretive

Notices under Rule 402 at para.9018 and para.9022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission intends that the requirement of three years of

relevant experience may be satisfied not only by pedagogical experience

but, also, by relevant industry experience. For example, such industry

experience might be acquired through legal practice in the fields of

futures or securities or employment as a compliance officer or risk

manager at a brokerage or end-user firm. NFA suggests in its comment

letter that guidelines, rather than an itemized list of acceptable

positions, be provided to address the types of experience that would be

acceptable for this purpose. Such guidelines could include examples of

acceptable relevant experience, such as those suggested by the

Commission, but would not preclude satisfaction of the relevant

experience requirement by other means. NFA (or the Commission if it

chose to retain that responsibility) would have the discretion to

determine whether a potential provider had demonstrated the relevant

experience.16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ NFA noted that it employs a similar approach under NFA

Compliance Rule 2-8. Rule 2-8 requires NFA associates who exercise

discretion over customer accounts to have been registered for two

years. NFA may, at its discretion, waive this requirement if the

associate shows that he has equivalent experience. Although

``equivalent experience'' is not defined in the rule, NFA has

encountered no difficulties in administering this rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NFA expressed its willingness to establish experience re-quirements

but requested confirmation that the Commission intends that it do so.

The Commission believes that it is appropriate for NFA to promulgate

rules establishing experience and proficiency standards for ethics

training providers, subject to the general standards set forth in Rule

3.34.17 The Commission hereby delegates authority to NFA to

promulgate rules establishing experience and proficiency standards for

ethics training providers. Such standards may consist of guidelines

consistent with the views set forth herein.18

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ 60 FR 64132, 64133.

\18\ Of course, NFA's rules must be submitted to the Commission

for review pursuant to Section 17(j) of the Act, which governs

Commission review and approval of registered futures association

rules. 7 U.S.C. 21(j) (1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Applicability of Certification, Proficiency Testing and Experience

Requirements

Rule 3.34 requires that any provider of ethics training, other than

an SRO offering ethics training to its members or employees or an

entity accredited to conduct continuing education programs by a state

professional licensing authority in the fields of law, finance,

accounting or economics, file the certification referred to above in

order to be included on a list of ethics training providers maintained

by a registered futures association. In December 1995, the Commission

proposed to amend Rule 3.34 to eliminate the provision permitting

state-accredited entities to provide ethics training without compliance

with the requirements applicable to other providers under the rule.

The Commission received one comment letter addressing this aspect

of the proposals. The commenter, an SRO, supported the proposal to

impose proficiency testing and experience requirements upon ethics

training providers other than SROs, even if they are state-accredited

entities. The SRO stated that until now almost all exchange members

received their ethics training from the exchange itself. While the SRO

believes that most members will continue to attend ethics training

provided by the exchange, a greater number of exchange members may

choose to enroll in ethics training programs offered by providers other

than the SRO as a result of the December 1995 amendments to Rule 3.34

which may increase the availability of videotape and electronic ethics

training programs. Therefore, the SRO expressed a strong interest in

assuring that non-SRO providers have the necessary knowledge and

experience to provide such training.19

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The SRO commenter also recommended an additional amendment

of Rule 3.34(b)(4) to require that ethics training providers submit

records of ethics training attendance by floor traders and floor

brokers to the contract markets that have granted them trading

privileges as well as to NFA. The Commission adopted an amendment to

Rule 3.34(b)(4) in December 1995 to require ethics training

providers to furnish records of attendees at such training to a

registered futures association but did not propose further

amendments to this provision. 60 FR 63907, 63911-63912. While the

Commission is generally supportive of contract markets receiving

ethics training records on floor traders and floor brokers to whom

they have granted trading privileges, the Commission does not

believe that an additional amendment to Rule 3.34(b)(4) is necessary

to achieve that end. Contract markets may encourage or require their

own floor trader and floor broker members to provide satisfactory

proof of satisfactory completion of the ethics training

requirements. Further, the Commission encourages ethics training

providers instructing floor traders and floor brokers to provide

this information to the relevant contract markets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission is adopting as proposed an amendment to Rule 3.34 to

require that state-accredited entities file with the NFA the

certification required under Rule 3.34(b)(3)(iii) and comply with the

other relevant provisions of Rule 3.34, including proficiency testing

and experience requirements. In the absence of such compliance and in

light of the potential for significant variations among state-

accreditation regimes, the Commission would have no ready means of

assuring that such providers have a minimum level of relevant knowledge

or experience.20

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ As to whether SROs themselves should be subject to the

requirements applicable to other providers under 3.34, the

Commission believes that the business purposes and functions of

SROs, the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to SROs,

and the Commission's oversight program for assuring compliance by

SROs with their responsibilities under the Act and Commission rules

provide sufficient assurance of the expertise and fitness of SROs as

ethics training providers without the necessity for imposing

additional requirements. Consequently, the Commission's proposals

with respect to proficiency training and pedagogical or industry

experience did not apply to SROs seeking to provide ethics training

to their members or employees. 60 FR 64132, 64134.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission proposed that the proficiency testing and minimum

experience requirements apply to the provider or sponsor of the ethics

training program, to any instructors or presenters employed by the

provider of such ethics training, and to those persons who prepare

ethics training videotapes or electronic presentations. NFA expressed

concern that the rule as proposed appeared to require that the ethics

training provider itself, which in many instances would be a corporate

[[Page 20131]]

entity, meet the proficiency and experience requirements. NFA

recommended that the Commission clarify this aspect of the rule to make

clear that the persons who will be required to meet these standards

include the principals of the ethics training provider, any instructors

or presenters employed by the provider and persons who prepare ethics

training materials, including videotaped and electronic presentations.

NFA also recommended that only those principals of registered firms

that offer in-house ethics training who are directly involved with the

ethics training process be required to meet the proficiency and

experience requirements, noting that it would serve no purpose to

require all principals of a registered firm to comply with these

requirements.

The Commission agrees that clarification of the applicability of

the testing and experience requirements is desirable and that these

requirements should not apply to all principals of registered firms.

The Commission believes that the proficiency testing and experience

requirements should apply to persons who are direct participants in

ethics training, whether as presenters of such programs, preparers of

course materials, or supervisors of such activities. Consequently, the

Commission believes that unlike the required representations concerning

fitness, which apply to all principals of the ethics training provider,

the testing and experience requirements should not apply solely by

virtue of status as a principal, but, rather, should be applicable

based upon involvement in such programs as instructors, developers,

supervisors or managers of such programs.

A person who is currently acting as an instructor or course

preparer for an ethics training provider whose application to provide

ethics training has previously been granted by the Commission will not

be subject to the proficiency testing and minimum relevant experience

standards of Rule 3.34. However, should such an ethics training

provider seek to add a new instructor or course preparer, such person

would be subject to the proficiency testing and minimum relevant

experience standards. Persons acting as instructors or presenters of

in-person ethics training or preparing videotapes or electronic

presentations on behalf of a state-accredited entity must meet the

proficiency and experience requirements, even if such persons have

previously been operating under Rule 3.34. However, for existing ethics

training providers operating as of March 29, 1996 pursuant to the

former Rule 3.34 provision permitting certain state-accredited entities

to provide ethics training without further authorization, the effective

date for these rule amendments will be deferred for 60 days to allow

adequate time for filing the requisite certification and to take and

pass the Series 3 Exam.

III. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1994),

requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of

those rules on small businesses. The rule amendments discussed herein

will not affect SROs who wish to provide ethics training but would

affect all others who seek to be included on a list of authorized

ethics training providers, including entities accredited to conduct

continuing education programs by state professional licensing

authorities in the fields of law, finance, accounting or economics. The

impact of this proposal on persons seeking to become providers of

ethics training should be minimal. At this time, a one-time processing

fee for the Series 3 Exam offered by the NFA is $75.00. This should not

constitute an unduly burdensome entry cost for ethics training

providers; the same cost is incurred by all the attendees at ethics

training as a cost of registration. Requiring a minimum level of

experience also should not adversely impact small businesses as this

requirement should not impose additional financial cost upon such

entities. Further, the ethics training requirement, reflects a

Congressional mandate to assure that registrants understand their

responsibilities to the public under the Act. Therefore, these rule

amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the

Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any

collection of information as defined by the PRA. In compliance with the

PRA, the Commission has previously submitted the proposed rule and its

associated information collection requirements to the Office of

Management and Budget. While the amendments proposed herein have no

burden, Rule 3.34 is a part of a group of rules which has the following

burden:

Rules 3.16, 3.32 and 3.34 (3038-0023, approved June 2, 1993):

Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.13.

Number of Respondents: 60,980.

Frequency of Response: On Occasion and Triennially.

Persons wishing to comment on the information which will be

required by these rules as amended should contact Jeff Hill, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 3228, NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, (202)

395-7340. Copies of the information collection submission to OMB are

available from Joe F. Mink, CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st St. NW,

Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5170.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 3

Registration, Ethics Training.

Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to the authority contained in

the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, sections 1a, 4d, 4e, 4g,

4m, 4p, 8a and 17 thereof (7 U.S.C. 1a, 6d, 6e, 6g, 6m, 6p, 12a and 21

(1994), hereby amends Part 3 of Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 3--REGISTRATION

1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. la, 2, 4, 4a, 6, 6b, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i,

6k, 6m, 6o, 6p, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21 and 23;

5 U.S.C. 552, 552b.

2. Section 3.34 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(b)(3)(ii) and revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3)(iii)

and paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 3.34 Mandatory ethics training for registrants.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) A person included on a list maintained by a registered

futures association who has presented satisfactory evidence to the

registered futures association that any individuals, on behalf of such

person, who present ethics training, prepare an ethics training

videotape or electronic presentation, or who supervise the foregoing,

have taken and passed the proficiency testing requirements for an

ethics training provider, as established by rules of a registered

futures association that have been approved by the Commission, and

possess a minimum of three years of relevant experience for an ethics

training

[[Page 20132]]

provider, as established by rules of a registered futures association

that have been approved by the Commission, and who certifies that:

(A) * * *

(3) A pending adjudicatory proceeding under sections 6(c), 6(d),

6c, 6d, or 9 of the Act, or similar proceeding under Section 8a of the

Act, or Secs. 3.55, 3.56, or 3.60; and

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC on April 25, 1996, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96-10730 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P